World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Your choice. I see where this might be attractive and definitely good move to still force the ground finish, but a lot of those FBs are empty and not manned with guards much less AA.
The net result most of the time is going to be more easily killed off attacks. Without a Proximty AO off mechanism (or my preferred solution, more coded Reserve/KOTH HC tools), going to be easier to blow FBs and therefore more attacks killed off and therefore more empty AOs during no-HC times.
Hope it gets more air into the game.

I went into a more in-depth proposal along these lines a few years ago, got chewed up for the trouble.
Operating a fire team or ultimately a platoon that is 3/4 AI would help with the density issue, teach overall unit tactics inherently, reduce action delay as you are right there, and allow for some serious blazing battles even if it's just two players.
But another benefit would be allowing other players to 'agent smith' into one of the other AI units. Ta-da! Instant action and unit joining with your friends/squaddies.

Yes there were backline caps, most notoriously the 'rocket Opel' grabs, where a small team would drive around in their trucks and with no EWS and very few facilities they would just go in, touch tables, it would be done in 3 minutes, That prompted the no-linky-no-cappy coding, which then meant that Opel teams would drive ahead of time to three towns in a row, cap the first one, second team would go in and cap the second, and maybe by then defenders would show up and kill the third team, maybe not.
For all the screechy people who cry about the 'notify enemy of intention to attack' and limiting aspects of AOs, there are reasons WHY for AOs, timed difference between depots and base facility caps, EWS, and no-linky-no-cappy.

Your technical points are all valid, in fact at one point I had a great big argument with Zeroace over a 'front line generator' series of what we would now call FMS rules (FRUs were much more porous and 360 surrounding towns).
In point of fact the Americans DID surround a lot of Germans in towns then reduce them, but that was as much the Big H ordering no inch given rather then what the generals would have preferred, local withdrawals to form a solid line and preserve manpower. Happened against the French, who were immobilized as much by their poor logistics as doctrine, in both cases the surrounding party had operational speed advantage, which is not modeled with ToEs (although they could be) and certainly won't with garrisons beyond literal driving down the road.
But my critique of both game tendencies and your assumption is that no people are NOT wired to have a jolly shootout, they work very hard to maneuver to firepower dominance, which involves avoidance of combat and damage up to the point of camping spawns.
And I don't blame them- the game design requires either ninja capping or burning through the enemy's supply while not losing your own. BOTH require combat avoidance up to the point of decision.
We enforce by endless diatribes and demands about a 'fair' spawnlist and opportunity, while the town castle as objective funnels action and generates lethal density, even if only for a few blocks.
IMO it requires WWIIOL 2.0 and a significant reorientation to destroying the enemy in a variety of settings while generating that density and retaining logistical capture/reward elements to get your shooter the way you want it.

You wanna go into that, the terrain coloration and game design favors one side for tanking just as much as any of the CQB buildings, and with the spawnlists set to burn through MGs very quickly guess where the tank advantage goes?
It continues to amaze me that both sides refuse to acknowledge their opponents' weakness, their own strengths, and work to a workable game for both. It really disheartens me and makes me wonder if I want to play with a bunch of people that just want THEIR advantage.

That's the shooter viewpoint, and I think the whole nodal mesh setup is certainly designed to create differing player-genned 'scenarios'.
However, my experience of what people do does not actually jibe with your shooter perspective. Player orgs from the Golden Era to today do their damnedest to avoid the enemy until the last, to win that all important critical firepower position that gets them the town, the objective most players orient themselves to.

I can define it for you.
The appropriate rate is not a hard number, it's psychological.
The 'right' number for capture rate is 1 town every 1-3 hours, able to be done no matter the pop, 24/7. At least half the town captures must be full on contested. This is to satisfy the 'team success' need for side/squad bonding and sense of ability to alter the outcome of the game. Epic defenses can do the same, and on average there will likely be more defense success then offense even with tweaks for easier offense, but a good cap is inestimable for morale, 'want to come back tomorrow/play later tonight', and player investment in game and outcome. This is the bedrock of why I am so on about pop neutrality, as the fix for TZ3 is that it is worth the few leaders' time to get on and be able to do something, not just be a punching bag for severely overpopped enemy forces.
Also, free uncontested wins, while necessary to do on the principle of 'gotta kill the baby seals before they become SEALs', is not satisfying other then seeing tears on the forum and knowing you are breaking a side. Of course, this is a big element of the Cycle Of Suck, and eventually hurts subs as inevitably one side or another is on the losing end of 'no point playing', either for map win or always ubercamped/can't play.
Net capture rate, which is different from towns changing hands, has to be at a rate that decides campaigns for one side or the other. That means either a broad attack with something like 4:1 capture rate advantage, or a 2:1 narrow front that threatens/takes factories for wins. We also need net capture rate advantage from day to day, just to get out of the WWIONLINE rut and not fight over the same towns. Boredom is ALWAYS the ultimate enemy of this game.
Before, we had population swings that would decide things, huge local supply advantages with overstock, morale hits through key captures or bombing/tech disadvantage or gritting teeth and just pounding on each other until one gives, or upset at the game/Rat decisions or internal strife. The other side would get advantage and press it.
Then we had an additional one with ToEs, HCs outnumbering or being on when the enemy HC wasn't, superior play particularly squads in conjunction with HCs gaining a logistical upper hand and inflicting one of the above or in addition cuts that captured large swaths of towns.
Now with the combination of AB cap doesn't bounce all supply, counterattack nets new list hours ahead of the enemy, and PN elements, these captures are coming but a bit slower then the flips before, more importantly the net capture rate is not consistently for one side or another and not fast enough to get us into new towns to fight in very quickly.
Going back to a principle of overpop has advantage/too bad so sad is a short path to sub kills, but some of the crazy results we see with CT/SD is counterproductive for subs either for both overpop and underpop, hence my focus on this element. But that's just one part of the larger puzzle as noted above.
What's needed is faster rapid 'departures from controlled flight', net capture rates that go faster then a couple towns per 4 hour leadership period. ToEs should have created that, but too many brigades and too much in each of their lists perversely created a lot of WWIONLINE and allowed for a lot of destroyed toys but bad wasteful goober play and frustration with the aforementioned 1-3 hour capture rate often not possible with the JWBS. In addition of course, the powerless cutoffs when no HC on to handle, and sometimes poorly trained or just incompetent ones on.
Ok, so we are now in 1.36 with the idea of preventing most of the above, possibly proximity AOs (with their own problems, not looking to hash that out here), largely working but grinding to a WWIONLINE halt.
Like I said, need a more unstable offense oriented game that IS a game, so no overpop giveaways but neither underpop frustrates overpop to quit, and the ability to reel off a net capture rate of something like 10 towns for a side in a 24 hour period and at least get into some new game situaitons and avoid the boredom of playing in the same towns over a week.
1/3 supply, 1 hour resupply, strat bombing double the effect.
That's my answer to your challenge at least David.
@OHM summary of my views about the present situation.

Still have to have a place the ML spawned from and moves to for placement of LMS and whatever that is can be camped.
Also takes away the trucks and light guns from depots, which are important flanking weapons for both attacker and defender, particularly in the current AB down but still can spawn garrison environment we are in now.